It is what he wrote. With or without my explanatory "to be used", the sentence conveys exactly the same thought. It's really too bad you don't have anything to "attach to" in 2005, but I'm sure the sentence would diagram quite well in 1829, confirming my interpretation.
"That's why this whole "dormant" commerce clause theory has no basis in original intent."
Then to what was Founding Father and Chief Justice John Marshall referring in 1829 in Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 2 Pet. 245 when he said:
"We do not think that the act empowering the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company to place a dam across the creek, can, under all the circumstances of the case, be considered as repugnant to the power to regulate commerce in its dormant state, or as being in conflict with any law passed on the subject."?
"Foreseen here" means "here" in the essay that he was writing."
Bzzzzzzt! Look at the sentence: "... and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here.
Germany attempted to prohibit tolls via laws from the Emperor and Diet -- it wasn't working. Madison is saying that the practice that has produced the mischiefs there in Germany have been foreseen here in the U.S. We don't do it that way here. We saw what happened there. It didn't work there.
"Positive" involves doing something that's not in response to someone else doing something wrong, but rather attempting to bring about a desirable goal (such as promoting manufactures) without anyone necessarily having prompted your action by doing something wrong."
Actually we agree, if that is indeed your definition. Keep in mind, to me, this would include the desirable goal, for example, of preserving healthy commerce by prohibiting the "exportation or shipment in interstate commerce of livestock having any infectious disease".
Do you agree?
Without the "explanatory" phrase, there's no way the sentence could convey the thought you've imputed to it without being gramatically atrocious. My reading of the sentence doesn't have that liability. One might "explain" it another way by replacing "as" with "to be", so as to make "and was intended to be a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the states themselves." That would convey the same thought as well, but it wouldn't be your thought.
It's really too bad you don't have anything to "attach to" in 2005, but I'm sure the sentence would diagram quite well in 1829, confirming my interpretation.
The rules of good grammar are the same now as then.
"That's why this whole "dormant" commerce clause theory has no basis in original intent."
Then to what was Founding Father and Chief Justice John Marshall referring in 1829 in Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 2 Pet. 245 when he said:
"We do not think that the act empowering the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company to place a dam across the creek, can, under all the circumstances of the case, be considered as repugnant to the power to regulate commerce in its dormant state, or as being in conflict with any law passed on the subject."?
I don't know what he was referring to, but he wasn't referring to original intent, as you yourself explained in the paragraph in your preceding post wherein you said that the Constitution doesn't automatically forbid a state from regulating the same commerce Congress is empowered to regulate.
"Foreseen here" means "here" in the essay that he was writing."
Bzzzzzzt! Look at the sentence: "... and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here.
The fact that "there" and "here" are used in different parts of the same sentence in no way proves that they're specifically in reference to each other. There's no reason at all why "there" can't mean "in Germany" while "here" means "here in Federalist #42". And I explained in my previous post why the context shows that that's what those two terms refer to.
Madison is saying that the practice that has produced the mischiefs there in Germany have been foreseen here in the U.S.
If it had been foreseen "here in the U.S.", it wasn't foreseen by everyone, which is why Madison had to "foresee" it in the previous paragraph, which I quoted for you. He was trying to persuade the reader that these bad things would happen here. If it had already been generally accepted, then there would have no need for him to cite the example of other countries.
We don't do it that way here. We saw what happened there. It didn't work there.
It worked well enough in Switzerland and the Netherlands. As I explained, the laws in Germany were being disrespected, not because the laws themselves were faulty, but because the political system there was too weak to enforce any of its laws. If they had tried to set up a court to which individual aggrieved principalities could apply (which who knows, maybe they did), then the result would have been the same, because there was no way the judgments could be enforced.
And in any case, you can't seriously expect that Madison intended for the supreme court to strike down state tolls, because there are toll roads all over the country, and they'll likely remain until Congress decides otherwise.
Actually we agree, if that is indeed your definition.
As long as you're reading the entire definition, not just the part you underlined.